An Insight (Not the Car)
In the discussions following my ethics post on SCO, I finally realized (comment #17):
You are not arguing for traditional conservative morality, you are arguing for Kantian (moral absolute) deontology. I don’t think Christian meta-ethics are either deontological or teleogical … or absolutist. I think, if pressed, I’d define Christian ethics is pneumatological … but that just occurred to me so I’m going to have to think that through in my next essay.
Modern ethics, wiki tells us, is divided today into deontological and teleological camps, or roughly speaking rule based ethics vs consequence based ethics with some variations. Christian ethics is neither. But then, what is it?
What does my claim that Christian ethics is pneumatological mean. That means, our ethical choices should be inspired by the Spirit (of God). St. Siluan (of St. Siluan the Athonite) suggests that this is, in part, accomplished by striving take first choice that springs unbidden to our mind as he believes that is, more often that not, is not from yourself but from the Spirit. Likely as well, one’s prayer life, ascetic struggle, and liturgical/sacramental participation play into that ability of the Spirit to influence you in this way. As well, Scripture and the traditions passed from the Fathers can be a guide for us … when we lack personal inspiration.
Filed under: Christianity • Ethics & Morality • Mark O. • Religion
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
Sooo, extramarital affairs, gay flings, bestiality, gouging out the eyes of puppies for fun… the morality of all of these are ALL contingent on whether or not the Spirit says so?
If the spirit says “Go rape a monkey” then by god, you ought to do so?
I’m not sure I’m following all your high-falutin’ philosophy talk, so maybe I’m just dumb, but that sounds like you’re saying there are no absolutes. I disagree, if that is what you’re saying.
[Are you currently taking a philosophy class and trying out the terminology?]
Dan,
That’s not what I wrote, thought, or what you even thought I wrote.
If the Spirit (that is God) asks you to take your son to the top of a mountain and sacrifice him, do you?
Abraham did (obey), and is rightly praised for it. You however, would not have done so, I deem and for that you will be judged.
I’m not taking a philosophy class. Jeesh. I have teenage kids, girls no less. What parent of teenager girls with a full time job has time for classes?
If the Spirit (that is God) asks you to take your son to the top of a mountain and sacrifice him, do you?
No, because that would be wrong because some things are always wrong. If I thought I heard “god” telling me to kill a child, I would presume that it was not God I heard at all, but voices in my head or the devil or a trick, but NOT the good and righteous God of heaven who has made it clear that we ought not murder.
So, if God tells someone to go rape a baby, you believe they should do so?
Dan,
Explain then how you align your Kantian deontology with the story of Abraham, Isaac and the trip to a Mountain in Moriah (Genesis 22). I’ll wait.
It’s a story in the Bible. Not every story in the Bible is a moral lesson directly for us that is to be interpreted as “This represents God’s Will or an accurate picture of God.”
How do you interpret the stories where God “gave” David all his wives and concubines? Is that an accurate portrayal of what God wants for our marriages? (2 Samuel 12)
How do you interpret passages where God tells Israel to wipe out every last man, woman and boy of an enemy nation but to save the “virgin girls” for themselves, that they may take them as wives? (Numbers 31, for one place) Is that an accurate portrayal of how God wants us to treat our enemies and their children?
And I still wonder if God were to tell someone to rape a child, if you think that person ought to obey?
I’ll wait.
Dan,
Wow. So St. Paul, Kierkegaard (fear and trembling) and everyone else doing using that “story in the Bible” as an example of obedience to God is … well all a lot of noise and nonsense over “just a story in the Bible” … which is “not a moral lesson.” No wonder why liberal Christians are knocked for their hermeneutic/exegetical sloth. For I do indeed (as arguably does St. Paul … see Romans for example) think that “story” is a moral lesson.
Fear of God is the beginning of Wisdom.
I’ll refer you as well to St. John Cassian’s writings in his “Conferences” with Abba Moses on discernment. All our impulses are not from the Spirit, there are demons as well. Discernment is how we tell the difference. But you were in a place, like Abraham, in which theosis was not uncommon … obedience is to God is indeed what we are called to do. So to put a point on it, if God asked me to do a thing, even that which you suggest, and I knew it was God and not Satan then I hope I would have the strength to do it.
Do you think God would tell someone to rape a child? I don’t. What sort of God do you worship?!
But the Bible tells us quite clearly (if you are given to taken it literally) that God told Israel to kill the mothers, fathers and sons of a nation but to spare the virgin daughters for forcible marriage. What kind of God do you worship?
Or, given the story you offered, God commands people to kill their children. What sort of god do you worship?
You’re the one asking that we take that story literally as a representation of a god that commands atrocities. I’m the one saying that God does not command atrocities. It is against God’s nature and, aside from that, just wrong.
As to my “moral lesson” line, perhaps I would have been better to say: It is in there AS a moral analogy (teaching us to obey God) but NOT as a representation of God’s character (God sometimes commands us to kill children).
As to “hermeneutic/exegetical sloth,” are you saying that God DOES sometimes command atrocities (as suggested in some stories in the Bible if taken literally) or that God does NOT command atrocities ever (as other clear teachings in the Bible offer, and to which our very own human nature – and our hearts on which God has written God’s Law – can attest)?
Dan,
You need to read to the end of the story. I’ll summarize see God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son. Abraham obeyed … but (and this is the part you seem to be missing) at the last moment, God seeing that Abraham was obedient, stayed his hand and offered an alternative sacrifice.
You, by your admission, would not have been obedient and thereby not blessed as well. If you are convinced it is God who commands, who are you to disobey? Do you “fear God”? Who are you to disobey God’s command?
I worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Of David and as well his only Son Jesus the Christ of Nazareth. Who was spoke by the apostles and so on and so forth. You, I think sometimes, worship your reason.
Why did God destroyed Sodom even “if there were 10 innocent remaining” or is that “just another story” and not a moral lesson?
Dan, if I may step in here, I think you’re, firstly, missing the idea that God has His will for a certain person or people at a certain time and in a certain circumstance. How God wanted Israel or Abraham to act in a certain situation is not necessarily to be taken as a blanket statement of what to do specifically as a general rule. His command to Abraham was specifically to him, at that time and place. But the idea of obedience to God, whatever He asks, has always been paramount. Even God Himself notes that circumcision, a practice He Himself ordained, is “nothing” compared to the command for obedience (1 Cor. 7:19). This is not situational ethics, it’s obeying God.
Secondly, please say what you really think about the Abraham/Mount Moriah story. Seriously. Do you think it’s even true that God commanded Abraham to kill his only son? Do you or do you not believe what it says, that God confirmed His promise of descendants specifically because Abraham was willing to kill his child on God’s say-so (Gen. 22:15-18)?
Paul says in Galatians 1:
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
IF God were to tell us to commit an atrocity, the first thing we ought to do is not say, “Oh, yes, God, I will do as you obey!” but rather, we should first question, “Who is this that’s telling me to do this horrible thing?”
We are fallible human beings. We don’t “hear” God telling us to do things in a clear audible and unmistakable voice. Sometimes, we hear things that are in our own heads. Sometimes, we hear the voices of those around us. And sometimes, we may feel like we’re tuned into some special message from God and we may be right.
But how do we measure that, we who are fallible human beings?
I’m saying ONE way we measure that is whether or not the “voice” is telling us to do good or evil. But this begs the question: How do we know what is good or evil?
We know from God’s Word. We know from God’s Word written on our hearts. And finally, we know imperfectly whatever it is we know.
But it helps to establish some basic parameters of right and wrong. Now, typically, neo-conservatives have taken this too far, claiming that “clearly” we can know all manner of things are right and wrong. Drinking, smoking, sex outside of marriage, polygamy, gay marriage, NOT dropping nukes on Hiroshima, criticizing a presidential policy, and on and on the list goes of things that many on the religious right have enumerated as being “clearly” wrong. I’m not taking it that far.
BUT, I do say that there are some basics we ought to be able to agree on. Most people throughout history and in most cultures and religions have agreed that killing children is wrong. Attacks against innocent people is wrong. Rape is wrong. Murder is wrong. Taking what doesn’t belong to you is wrong.
Serious matters of life and death are generally consistently agreed with. Some things are wrong. If nothing else, we can agree that raping children is wrong, can we not? Clearly and objectively with no exceptions WRONG.
And so, if you hear a god telling you to do one of these worst atrocities, the first thing you ought to do is question it. For, as Paul said, “even if an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you…” let the red flags fly.
Mark said:
Why did God destroyed Sodom even “if there were 10 innocent remaining” or is that “just another story” and not a moral lesson?
I have already corrected myself saying that the Abraham story WAS a moral lesson, just not a lesson on God’s nature. Similarly for Sodom.
Do you think it’s even true that God commanded Abraham to kill his only son? Do you or do you not believe what it says, that God confirmed His promise of descendants specifically because Abraham was willing to kill his child on God’s say-so?
Dan,
That may be true for you and me, but it is not universal. Theophany as an experience is very often overwhelming.
What is the moral lesson of the debate Abraham had with God and stopping at 10 (not 0)? I think one moral lesson is a political one, that collateral damage is sometimes necessary in the real world (not the ivory tower where you seem to dwell).
And you failed to answer Doug’s question.
I don’t have an opinion on whether or not it actually happened as described. It would seem an odd trick for God to play, but inasmuch as God did not have Abraham actually kill Isaac, it is in the realm of possibility, I suppose.
But stories where god commands atrocities (fully expecting them to be implemented) do NOT represent God’s nature. Do YOU think that God sometimes orders atrocities? Rape? Killing children?
If not, then how do you KNOW that God doesn’t do so? Is it because some things are just wrong?
Doug stated:
How God wanted Israel or Abraham to act in a certain situation is not necessarily to be taken as a blanket statement of what to do specifically as a general rule.
In Deuteronomy 21, God says:
When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, and seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; and she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
That is a general rule that God offers to Israel. As such, if taken literally, it shows that God is okay with defeating an enemy, kidnapping their women, shaving their heads and cutting their nails (classic strategies for demoralizing female captives and making them submissive and unable to scratch you when you rape them) and making them your wife (after generously allowing a full month for them to mourn the family you just slaughtered).
I’m saying that such behavior is wrong. Always. A full reading of the bible has God demonstrating an abhorrence towards such behavior because it is not in God’s nature for us to behave in such a manner.
When I believed as you did, it was because I held a false allegiance to an ideal of a Bible that perfectly inerrantly represents God’s nature without flaw. If it says God commands slaughtering babies, then by God, sometimes slaughtering babies is a good thing!
What I failed to see was that my allegiance to a literal bible, I was failing to take the Bible seriously. As I started taking the Bible seriously, I had to give up my delusions of a literal Bible.
Seems y’all are advocating the Divine Command Theory:
According to DIVINE COMMAND THEORY
rape can be good
child molesting can be good
lies can be good
theft can be good
slaughter of thousands of innocent people can be good
All that matters is that the “god” commands it. I don’t think this is a scripturally nor morally sound position to hold.
Mark said:
Theophany as an experience is very often overwhelming.
So are auditory and visual hallucinations and quite impossible to tell the difference between the two, from what I’m told by my bipolar and psychologist friends.
Look at it from just a common sense point of view…
1. Nothing in the Bible says that we ought to take each story literally or that each story represents perfectly God’s Nature.
2. In the Abraham/Isaac story, the gist of the story is that we ought to obey God no matter what! And for a God that wants folk to follow in God’s Way, that’s a good thing and the Abraham story emphasizes that quite well. It is a good (if over-the-top) parable, in that sense.
3. Yet clearly, we know from throughout the bible that it is wrong to kill children. Sacrificing children to gods is oftentimes condemned in the Bible and, again, our very own fallen human nature can tell us that it is horrifyingly wrong to sacrifice our child.
4. So, from a practical point of view, would it not make common sense that this is a story designed to teach a point (follow in God’s Way) rather than to teach God’s nature (God sometimes tells people to commit atrocities) – which is contrary to what we know about God?
Dan,
Are you denying the existence of theophany? I’m guessing you’ve skipped reading St. John Cassian’s recounting on the teachings on discernment.
Am I to understand that you don’t believe the story about Abraham is true or real? But just a parable? Is the crucifixion a parable too? That’s far more unbelievable you know.
When I wrote:
How do you respond? What lesson do you take from Genesis 18:22-32? Give us your exegesis, as you dismiss mine without offering an alternative.
You have repeatedly pointed to Hiroshima as clearly “evil” and a mistake. What do you imagine the consequence would be of not dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? You have failed to offer your take on what to do in general in response to the military aggression and genocidal slaughter (Nanjing) by Japan in the Asian theater.
I think that says it all; thank you Dan. The Bible says only what Dan thinks should make sense. And, as noted with the gay marriage thread, it doesn’t matter what centuries of Christian scholars may have said, it has no more or less weight than what Dan thinks today. Such a view has led to this level of stalwart confidence in the Scripture you say you believe (after first dancing wildly around the question):
This after saying that God would never request such a thing. If it doesn’t fit your “common sense”, it must be just a work of fiction designed to make a point, which just happens to be mixed in with other historical truths and we’re expected to tell where one stops and the other starts. The irony, in addition to the arrogance, is strong with this one. Honestly, I really can no longer take your opinion of Scripture seriously.
For my part, I’ll make some closing remarks on your view of literalists.
The Mount Moriah situation was for Abraham’s benefit, not for God’s. God, being omniscient, knew the outcome. He was taking Abraham to the point of maximum obedience and letting him know that no matter what God said, God would protect him and keep His promises if Abraham would obey. No trick. A step on Abraham’s journey.
But in your mind, no more than a potential “odd trick” that must be grudgingly accepted, I suppose. Even if God would never do it. I guess.
When God calls, for example, for the killing of all of the enemy at a time of war, leaving no one alive, including children, is that really what He did (Deut. 7: 1-2, Deut. 20:16-28, for example)? Your complaint is that the literalist thinks that the “slaughter of thousands of innocent people can be good”. Well let me ask you; if God had done the killing Himself, would that be OK then? God has the power and the right to decide who lives or dies, does He not? God wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah by fire, did He not? How is His doing the same thing by another means — the army of His people — any different? Is it not His call? Does He not determine when each of us will die?
Let’s put it another way; is sending people to Hell good? I’d say no, it’s not a “good” thing, at least not the way it sounds like you’re defining it. God doesn’t like to do it, it goes completely against His very will that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9), and the people sent there don’t like it much themselves. Going to Hell is not “good”. And yet He divides the sheep from the goats and sends them their way. It may not be a “good” thing, but it is the righteous thing to do. It is His exalted justice at play here when all chance for his goodness has come and gone. His righteousness is a mixture of goodness and mercy as well as justice and obedience.
Hence, I’d say that “a full reading of the Bible” reveals a bit more than just “this is always objectively good and this isn’t”, contrary to your straw man. Where your line of thought leads is a place where you have to somehow explain away all the the things that don’t fit your conception. You agree that “we are fallible human beings”, but you then lean much more heavily, it appears, on your own understanding rather than take the Bible at its word. This, then, let’s you pick and choose the points of divine inspiration, and that’s dangerous and capricious, not, as you put it, “serious”.
Instead, what we have is God using His people to pass His righteous judgement on those living in Canaan. That was His word for them at that time and place. Not situational ethics; His commandment. And not necessarily an arguable “good” either, but just and righteous. And unless you think God capricious in His judgements, we have to believe that He had His reasons for those people at that time.
This line of thinking also leads you to saying that what the Bible condemns is probably OK, and what the Bible said was OK couldn’t possibly be so. Homosexual acts, while being condemned by description and by name (regardless of the verse count), are explained away as perhaps specific to a particular type of idol worship, as though worshiping an idol was not enough of an “abomination”. And while God detailed what marriage looks like to Him, perhaps man wasn’t really ready for the real definition of marriage, and you are then free to concoct a definition from your own understanding. At the same time, a part of the Bible where God specifically allows the Israelites to take women captives to marry (again, at that time and in that place) is obviously not true. Or something. I suppose. This after adding in commentary where God’s commandment could possibly be construed as permission to rape. If you consider it a certain way. I suppose.
I’m sorry, Dan, but I have to take the Bible at its word and assume that where I don’t understand it, it’s my problem, not the Bible’s. God gave us a number of absolute rules, no doubt about that. But He always knows the big picture, whereas we don’t, so we need those rules. Jonah couldn’t destroy Nineveh, but God could. Jonah’s small view of the big picture caused him to believe the city should be destroyed, but God, being omniscient, changed the plan (or, more accurately, changed Jonah). Would he have been any less God — righteous, good and just — had he destroyed the city?
I say No. I have no idea in the world what you might say because I don’t know what your personal “common sense” says. And that is where we’re going to have to part ways, scripturally speaking.
Wow. So many misunderstandings of what I’ve said. My apologies for not being more clear.
Am I to understand that you don’t believe the story about Abraham is true or real? But just a parable? Is the crucifixion a parable too? That’s far more unbelievable you know.
My answer, which I apologize if it wasn’t clear, was that I don’t have an opinion on whether or not it happened exactly as it is described. By saying that, I meant to say that I don’t have an opinion on the matter. I did not mean to say (and, in fact, did not say) that the story is or is not “true or real.” What I meant was that I don’t have an opinion.
I believe the crucifixion is real. And it is entirely believable within the context of biblical teaching (as opposed to saying God sometimes tells us to kill children, which is NOT believable). By saying I believe the crucifixion is “real,” that is what I mean, that I think it really happened. Not only that, but I believe Jesus rose from the dead three days alter.
Just to be clear.
Are you denying the existence of theophany?
Don’t have an opinion on it, either, for what it’s worth. What I said and meant to say was that some people with mental illnesses hear “god” and it’s entirely believable to them and they couldn’t be convinced otherwise.
That’s all I said, that’s all I meant. I apologize if I was less than clear.
The Bible says only what Dan thinks should make sense. And, as noted with the gay marriage thread, it doesn’t matter what centuries of Christian scholars may have said, it has no more or less weight than what Dan thinks today.
I did not say, nor did I intend to give that idea. I disagree with that idea. What I’ve tried to indicate (and once again, I’m sorry if I’ve been less than clear) is that the bible says what it says and this poor human community has to go about trying to discern God’s Word for what God wants us to know. And not just the Bible, God’s Word, but God’s word written on our hearts.
We measure the Bible’s words and message to us in many ways, including church tradition. But that is not the only way. There’s also the understanding of the context and language (as best we can) and seeking biblical consensus and Jesus’ teaching on the topic.
What Dan personally has to think plays on it only insofar as we all are responsible for striving to understand God’s Word – Dan has to strive to discern it, Doug and Mark have to try to discern it, and so on.
Doug said:
This after saying that God would never request such a thing. If it doesn’t fit your “common sense”, it must be just a work of fiction designed to make a point…
I’m unsure how you got this, as I did not say that God would never request such a thing (although I did say it was an “odd request”). Nor did I say that if it doesn’t fit my idea of common sense, it was a fiction. Never said it, don’t believe it, didn’t intend it.
I hope that clears up many confusions and mistakes y’all have made about what I have (or haven’t) said. Again, my apologies if I contributed to the misunderstandings.
And still, I am hoping for some direct clarification from y’all: Do YOU think that God sometimes orders atrocities? Rape? Killing children?
Is there NOTHING in your world that is black and white wrong everytime?
Nor did I say that if it doesn’t fit my idea of common sense, it was a fiction. Never said it, don’t believe it, didn’t intend it.
You called it a “parable”, if “over-the-top”. That’s how I got this. And your cop-out “no opinion” reply on something that could potentially invalidate your view of Scripture is telling.
I don’t recall God commanding rape. If you have a case, let me know. But I doubt discussing it would be of any use, since you’re very prepared to ignore or label “parable” anything that goes against your view. I’ve already covered God’s command to the Israelites, and God’s own actions (were there no children at all in Sodom and Gomorrah, Nine eh, Canaan?).
You simply won’t “allow” God to determine His own actions. Otherwise you wouldn’t have to explain away, or take no opinion, on actions that don’t fit your common sense, and you wouldn’t have danced so much around the Moriah true/false question. I say that because that’s how you’ve acted. You say you’re “striving to discern” God’s word, but won’t take it at face value. That disingenuous in the extreme.
There are loads of black and white issues for me and, I believe, for humanity in general. Again, we don’t know the big picture. However, God’s actions show, if you’re willing to take the Bible at face value, that He will sometimes do what we think is wrong (and would be wrong if done on our own initiative) to achieve His will. The Bible is full of examples of this. You reject them? Fine, but as I said, you then open up all sorts of opportunity for discernment to become projection.
Dan,
Stepping back a bit, you continue to insist, and I see no reason to think you are not being honest, that to you Doug and I seem inconsistent and irrational. That is, however at the same time, how we perceive you.
For example, you earlier derided the exegesis you requested of me of a Luke verse in which Jesus quoted Isaiah at the start of his ministry. You pointed out that, instead of reading those verses in a “modern literal” way and instead interpreting as I understood Jesus audience to understand those words instead that I was not being literal. Then here, for example, you accuse me of the opposite (that is of being literal). Again, in this comment thread at one point you accuse me of relativism and another point of being an absolutist.
We’ll make more progress if we all assume the other guy has a consistent viewpoint (which is alien/foreign to the other) and is trying to explain that. Here in the essays like the prior one on ethics. There I was explaining my understanding of ethics and how that fits in with good and evil. The exercise for you should be set aside your particular preconceptions and try to understand what I’m saying. Because, for example, I don’t call choices “good/evil” per se, and instead view them as an expression of your understanding of what comprises good and evil doesn’t mean I’m a relativist and you’d understand that if you attempt the exercise of thinking that way. If you make a choice I disagree with, that means your understanding of good is flawed.
Now, for instance, Doug has pointed out that what you’ve been claiming in the above seems inconsistent. For another example, you cite how collateral damage is necessarily never justified, but at the same time, the Genesis verses noted above regarding Abraham’s debate with God prior to Sodom/Gomorrah is an ethical illustration which exactly illustrates exactly that political point. Now, claiming both Scripture supports your point of view and you’ve “no opinion” on how to interpret those verses seems to us (speaking for Doug a bit), well, inconsistent.
This is an opportunity for you to demonstrate who your viewpoint is consistent, how it fits together. We’re not following what your saying and it seems your not following us. However, lets all try to remember that we are really engaged here in an attempt to persuade the other, but to understand him.
Additionally, in a lame attempt to wrest the post back to its original intent, the notion of pneumatological ethics would be that our ethics should not be driven by consequence or rules (teleology or deontology) by by Spirit (inspiration). This is not to say discernment of the validity of the source of our inspiration, which may in part be driven by context and content, should not come into play. I’m not claiming that.
It seems to me, however, that if your life is holy, filled with prayer, ascetic struggle, liturgy, and as the Psalmist says “my sin is ever before me” then it is more likely that your inspiration will be Godly than if your life is secular and sordid.
Furthermore, if you follow my notion of ethics, if you live a life like that your vision of good will be thereby all the clearer and your choices will be closer to God and the good as well.
Doug said:
And your cop-out “no opinion” reply on something that could potentially invalidate your view of Scripture is telling.
It sure is. It is telling that I don’t have a strong opinion on it. I apologize if you find that to be a cop-out. Some things I have strong opinions on (fighting oppression and injustice, loving our neighbors, good barbecue), other things are not as consequential to me and so I have no strong opinions on it (did God actually ask Abraham to kill Isaac, am I calvinistic or armenian, what’s on TV).
I apologize you if it offends you that I don’t have a strong opinion on a question you want answered, but should I lie to you and tell you I DO have a strong opinion when I don’t?
I don’t recall God commanding rape. If you have a case, let me know.
The aforementioned cases of God telling Israel to “take” foreign virgin girls (how did they know they were virgins?) as their wives. Forcible marriage, after slaughtering the girl/woman’s family, falls into the rape category to me. What do you call it?
If you prefer, I could refer to it as “forcible marriage to a virgin girl/woman whose family you just slaughtered and whom you kidnapped from her razed home.”
Let me know your preference.
But I doubt discussing it would be of any use, since you’re very prepared to ignore or label “parable” anything that goes against your view.
I apologize if I’ve given you the idea that this is what I think. God forbid that we should study the Bible thusly! I am strongly opposed to that sort of twisting of scripture, so it would appear we are in agreement on that point.
My “views” were quite conservative for the first half of my life and only changed as I sought to be transformed by God’s Word, so in my case, the suggestion you’ve made is verifiably factually wrong.
My “view” on war was it was an okay – even good, at times – thing. I had to change my personal view, though, in order to align it with God’s Word.
My “view” on gay marriage was that is was an abominable suggestion. I had to change my views as I studied the Bible and became more aware of God’s teachings.
And on, I could go. No, I very much believe in making our lives transformed by God’s Word, not the other way around.
There are far, far too many of us who remake God’s Word into a tract to support our existing beliefs – it is a challenge of the human condition to do so, it would seem. We sure do it enough.
But it is wrong to do so. I’m glad we agree on that point and I’m sorry if it sounded otherwise. I’m glad to have cleared that point up for you.
you cite how collateral damage is necessarily never justified, but at the same time, the Genesis verses noted above regarding Abraham’s debate with God prior to Sodom/Gomorrah is an ethical illustration which exactly illustrates exactly that political point.
1. I cite that killing children or innocent civilians is always a wrong, to be clear.
2. YOU think that Abraham’s debate illustrates that point, I don’t.
3. I think the point of the Sodom story in general was that God’s holiness can’t stand oppressive, gluttonous, outrageously immoral and violent behavior.
4. The “if there were ten” part of the story suggests more than one thing to me. It suggests
a. That we can “reason” with God – that God does not mind if we talk things through with God (as opposed to mindlessly saying, “Yes, Lord” to whatever the voices tell us).
b. That God “is not willing that any should perish”
c. again, an indicator of the “wrong-ness” of sin and that sin has consequences.
These are some conclusions that I draw from reading that story. I do not read it and say, “oh, I guess that means that it is okay for us to sometimes kill innocent people.”
Why don’t I do that? It is, after all, a conclusion that someone could draw from the story (you have, for instance). I don’t draw that conclusion because it is not consistent with the biblical whole in general or Jesus’ teachings specifically.
When we interpret scriptures, we anabaptists (as well as others) have many criteria for weighing and comprehending any single verse.
1. We read all scriptures through the “lens” of Jesus – how does this scripture compare to Jesus’ teachings?
2. We read any individual scripture and compare it to the biblical whole. Does this scripture seem to contradict other scriptures? How do we reconcile that?
3. Pray for understanding.
These are three of my/our first steps in reading scriptures and applying it to our lives.
Dan,
The count stopped at 10 … how to you get “(b)” from that, i.e., that “That God “is not willing that any should perish”? The debate did not go down to 0. If the statement you quote was true wouldn’t it be necessary for the argument to go to “if any innocent remain” … but it doesn’t does it.
My conclusion is that is a Jeffersonian redaction you’d add to the text to make it fit your preconceptions? But you obviously do not see it that way. So … it seems to depend then on your precondition of #1.
Uhm, can you explain where you find that in the verses noted? Why do you make that claim here for these verses. Where does it come from?
See the thing is, that’s the question not the conclusion. The question is, “is the death of innocent never permitted?” If you assume as a precondition “no” and use that “as a lens in which to interpret” what you read, then it seems unsurprising that where the text doesn’t support your understanding of the premise you have to twist it.
As to the earlier Nan King question, I’ll answer this here, if that’s okay.
Although I don’t know that I have anything new to add that is different than what I’ve said before.
1. Those who support war-as-solution love to create impossible situations and then ask, “How do you fix that, smart peace guy?” Whether it’s the old “If someone were going to shoot a child and the only way you could stop them is to shoot them” cliche or the “Nazi” problem, picking a worst case scenario, which was created (at least in the WWII example) without the help of Just Peacemakers, and then asking how they’d fix it is a common approach.
2. Our short answer is usually, “Don’t create the circumstances that led up to the scenario is how you begin to try to ‘fix’ it.”
3. That is, our answer to how to deal with Nan King type scenarios is not to wait until a situation gets to that stage, but have set the stage for possible peaceable solutions to work. As JF Kennedy said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
4. We propose a multifaceted approach:
a. Invest as much in peacemaking preparations as we do in war-making preparations (“Why are we violent but not illiterate? Because we are taught to read.” -Colman McCarthy)
b. This might include things like a Dept of Peace (or Diplomacy), support for some sort of world court and some sort of UN-type organization.
c. This might include increased responsible aid and better policy towards impoverished nations (all of which can be funded by decreasing our vastly bloated military budget)
d. In fact, decreasing our military budget would be a step in and of itself – think about it, if one nation (not us) were to have a military machine that was very nearly larger than the rest of the world’s, does that not make one inclined to distrust that gov’t? Especially if they have shown themselves to consider themselves above the law?
e. Have the Democratic, peace-loving nations lead the way in adhering to some basic laws (which, in our case, would not require submitting to “international law” since our own laws – if followed – are exactly the sort of laws that everyone ought to heed. God bless US wisdom in creating these sorts of rules for engagement and war.)
f. Make international law clear and fair – if it is just used as a way to keep other nations under our thumb, it will be abundantly clear and will not help.
g. We will need police action in some cases – if a group of Japanese are killing people in China, then there needs to be procedures followed and, failing to comply with international law, consequences to be upheld.
h. Communications need to be open between those who’d want to maintain the peace and aggressor nations.
i. In preparing for peaceful solutions, we will need to understand the motivators for the aggressors, who their allies are, what their resources are; in knowing this, we can better apply other, more peaceful solutions.
j. As in the situation in Nicaragua, smart, Direct Action peacemaking efforts found a way to reduce and stop the terrorist violence against nicaraguan villages by determining WHO their funders were and WHAT would convince them to stop the violence. IF the terrorists know that their funders will stop funding them if they kill US citizens, then all we had to do was place US citizens in the besieged villages. The attacks stopped. Although the terrorists there cared nothing for the US (and other) peacemakers in the villages, they did not want to lose their funding.
k. Thomas Jefferson was right: We have an option more powerful than war in our economic powers and that is certainly part of the solution.
I could go on, but you get the gist. If we want peaceful solutions to violent situations, we need to plan and prepare for the possibility of peace.
You need to know that peaceful solutions WILL NOT ALWAYS WORK.
Just as with violent solutions, peaceful solutions will fail horribly. Sometimes even with the peaceful approach, we’ll be forced to fall back on violent solutions and THEY will fail horribly.
Sometimes we will feel forced to choose (what we think may be, but of course can not know) the lesser of two evils and the result WILL BE evil. Best scenario, it will be a lesser evil but it will still be evil. Once you start talking about violence in and around innocent people, evil will result.
The “war-as-solution” for WWII resulted in some tens of millions of deaths and led up to the Cold War with its own evil results. Is that a “success” for war? If so, I’d hate to see the failures.
Dan had said:
1. I cite that killing children or innocent civilians is always a wrong, to be clear.
To which Mark asked:
Uhm, can you explain where you find that in the verses noted? Why do you make that claim here for these verses. Where does it come from?
I answered this within my earlier comment where I said:
These are some conclusions that I draw from reading that story. I do not read it and say, “oh, I guess that means that it is okay for us to sometimes kill innocent people.”
Why don’t I do that? It is, after all, a conclusion that someone could draw from the story (you have, for instance). I don’t draw that conclusion because it is not consistent with the biblical whole in general or Jesus’ teachings specifically.
======
I DON’T see the notion that “killing children is always wrong” in the cherry picked verses you cite. I DO find that to be a solidly biblical and godly conclusion though, based on the WHOLE Bible. As I said.
This is not a rejection of the Bible, but an embracing of what it says and a taking of what it says seriously. To say that sometimes the Bible says we can kill children, THAT, to me is a rejection of the Bible as a serious and holy book. Once you argue that the Bible teaches sometimes it’s okay to slaughter children, then you may as well be reading The Art of War or the writings of the Marquis de Sade.
And, to be honest, I am never ceased to be amazed that I have to argue – with fellow Christians; with those who identify themselves as “pro-life”!! – that killing children is always a wrong. Yes. It is always, always wrong. Raping babies or dashing their heads against rocks is wrong. Kidnapping girls and making them your wives forcibly (after having slaughtered their family) is wrong!
Why am I having to make a case for the obvious? Is it just Mark here that thinks these things are not innately wrong or does everyone here think that “it all depends…”?
Dan,
I’m confused. In what way does this answer the question?
Let me simplify. You are president in 1941 (say you are FDR and president since 1933?). What sort of things does your depression ridden country do to halt German and Japanese aggression? Or if it doesn’t/can’t, Japan has invaded China and other parts of Asia. Reports of the Rape of Nanjing are available. Hitler has invaded Poland and the USSR as well as the other events you know. What do you do? Am I to take it that your solution is to “devote half of our resources to peace”? What does that even mean? How would “half our resources to peace” mean in this context?
Do you understand that WWII was not a sure victory? The US was not a superpower. It is likely without an all out effort (which was what we attempted) to defeat the Axis powers militarily would mean victory for the Axis, i.e., Japan takes Asia including Australia and Germany Europe and the Soviet State outright. That seems like a worse outcome than your suggested “tens of millions” (I think the figure is more like 100 million to be honest). If the Axis powers were victorious, given Nanjing and Auschwitz and the like don’t you think that very quickly the death toll (not to speak of worse things than death) would be far higher?
I think you’re a little confused about any time war is in fact seen as the correct choice. War is not selected because war is a wonderful solution to any problem. War is selected when it is seen that the alternatives are worse. Specifically as you note:
Let’s consider the cost of failure. In the European/African continents Hitler wins. All the Jews, homosexuals, and other indigent races (Romany for example) are exterminated. Enslavement (or extermination) is on the table of all other “non-Aryan” “races” such as the Slavs and the African. That seems, actually, far far worse to me as it did to those who decided they must go to war against the Axis powers. How about to you?
And I think the idea presented
is a cop out, just as the Marxist notion that “it will only really work if the whole world is Marxist.” Are you really suggesting that “just peacemaker” solutions will only work if those solutions have been used universally or all along? That’s remarkably disingenuous.
Dan,
What verses do you find in the Bible that speak to political ethics, i.e., the ethics of nation and not individuals?
Dan,
You know your repeated statements that I’m “all for killing kids” seems to deny the notion that instance where I’ve said its appropriate is where the alternative is worse, such as “to prevent the death of many more kids”. You have made it clear that you find killing one kid to save 10 is not a trade you’d make (preferring to let all 11 die).
As I see it, you prefer to value your own personal sanctity more than the life of any number of kids, which seems to me a false view of the good.
You do know, there are sins of omission as well as commission don’t you? By failing to “act” you have doomed 11. That is an action in an of itself is it not?
You know your repeated statements that I’m “all for killing kids” seems to deny the notion that instance where I’ve said its appropriate is where the alternative is worse, such as “to prevent the death of many more kids”.
Mark, I have not said that. Sorry you hear that in reading between my lines or wherever you found that, but they’re not in anything I’ve written.
I didn’t say that because I don’t think it.
And I’m well aware of sins of omission.
A sin of commission is when you deliberately take a wrong action. A sin of omission is when you fail to take a positive action that you could have. I don’t think choosing against killing kids (this kid OR that kid) in order to save a kid (that kid OR this kid) falls under the category of sin of omission.
I’ll address more of your questions as I get a chance.
Dan,
You are aware that in no way represents the question I had posed.
It was, if you recall, “your kid vs those 10 kids” in order “to save those 10 or your kid” and the consequences of inaction doomed yourself and all the kids. You chose inaction, which was tantamount to an active choice (by omission) killing all and committing suicide.
Now you had pointed out that the true “evil” of this situation was the agent who engineered this situation. One might then ask, what if circumstance and no human agent caused this situation to arise. Is it then God (or Satan) whom you’d blame?
I narrowed it down to kill this kid to save that kid or vice versa. Does it make a difference? Is killing THIS kid to save THAT kid immoral but killing THIS kid to save THOSE ten kids moral?
The evil is in deciding to make the decision to kill a child. Or children. And these “what if” questions are just a bit ridiculous.
What if the only way to save your children was to french kiss a baboon so fiercely and passionately that it eventually dies? What if the only way to save those ten children was to torture your loved one with an fiery ice pick for ten days until they were begging you to kill them? What if? What if? What if?
This is why we have morals. Some things are wrong. Period. We know this so that, if in that 1 in a hundred billion chance comes along that you find yourself in one of these insane positions, you know what to do.
And killing children is one of those things that is just wrong. I’ve made clear this is my position.
Believe as you wish, that is my position based on what the Bible says and my understanding of God. If you think (based on your understanding of the bible and god) that a god might command you to commit atrocities, you are free to believe so.
Dan,
The only reason for the question was to isolate the very real world situations in which one is faced with choices in which there is no alternative that doesn’t involve things which you like to naively coin as wrong. That the situation in which action causes the death of children (if that’s the moral coin at which we are talking) and inaction also causes the death of children.
You had intimated that you prefer refer to the resultant choice “the lesser evil” but to at the same time insist that both choices are in fact evil.
There are really only two things are really trying to get across here.
The first is that, as I’ve tried to point out to you, that in the way I define and discuss ethics that doesn’t make any sense (that is choices aren’t in an of themselves “good or evil” but all in fact are reflections of your particular view of the good.. Do you at least understand what I’m saying. That’s all I’m trying to get across to you. If you do, we can stop talking about this. Otherwise, I think there is some use for us to continue talking, perhaps you might suggest a different way of attacking the discussion,
The second is, at least for me, to identify whether or not your ethics is really a form of Kantian deontology. That is, in the ideal based on an absolute set of rules, like, lying is always wrong. Killing children is always wrong and so on. If your meta-ethic (that is how you go about ethics) is different than that, please try to explain in more detail. Because, if it is, I think there are problems with that for the Christian, as highlighted by Abraham and Mount Moriah … and I could find more examples.
That is, in the ideal based on an absolute set of rules, like, lying is always wrong.
1. I believe that things are, in fact, right or wrong. Objectively so.
2. I believe that we are flawed human beings who are incapable of “getting it right” 100% of the time when it comes to perfectly knowing what is right and wrong.
3. I, in general, recognize that for most given actions (lying, stealing, etc), that there are a variety of circumstances and conditions. Stealing to get richer is wrong. Stealing as a last resort to keep a child from dying is not wrong (or at least, less wrong/more gray).
4. However, despite our human condition of not being omniscient (and therefore able to correctly know in every circumstance what the Right is) and the reality of “gray” areas, I think most people agree that there are some actions that are always and in every situation without a doubt wrong. I’m thinking of the worst of atrocities here – killing children and other unmentionable actions.
Does that answer your question?
Dan,
As noted above, there are situations where unmentionable consequences are unavoidable, all choices have some of the above. How do you encompass that in your statement noted above.
I’m not sure what you’re asking. I think it wrong to commit some actions, period. I don’t think there ARE circumstances that make raping a child not wrong. It is always wrong.
If someone says, “rape then kill this child or I will kill one million children,” it would STILL be wrong to do that bidding. That the action may be the supposed lesser of two evils does not make that action right.
That is my position.
When you’re talking about that degree of evil, I don’t even know that “the lesser of two evils” is even useful language – a useful paradigm.
It is evil, period, to do some actions. If someone wants to try to force you into an evil action, then THAT is an evil action. There is no “lesser of two evils” to even talk about, there are just evil actions – at least when you’re talking about that level of horror.
In the real world, it doesn’t happen that someone offers you THIS option or THAT option, both of which are horrifying.
Rather, in the real world, someone may be committing an evil deed. It is then up to us how we respond to that evil deed, and in so doing, there are a spectrum of options available to us – NOT a single “Shall I let that evil continue unabated or shall I commit an action that is also evil?”
Dan,
It seems we disagree, you I think dwell in an ivory tower on this one. You say In the real world, it doesn’t happen that someone offers you THIS option or THAT option, both of which are horrifying. We agree that binary options are not real world. However I disagree on the existence of choices which you term the “lesser of evils”. That is, for example, no choice possible (in the spectrum available) that will not result in the death of the innocent.
Second, you haven’t indicated whether you understand my approach to ethics. I’m not asking you to agree it, the question is, do you understand it?
Finally, you still haven’t indicated what you would advise regarding US policy in Asia in the early 1940s.
That is, for example, no choice possible (in the spectrum available) that will not result in the death of the innocent.
But there are choices we make as to whether or not WE choose to kill innocent people. You’re saying, as best I can understand you, that you think circumstances can force us into choosing to commit an evil act (killing an innocent). I’m saying we may FEEL that way (as if we have no choice) but we always have choices.
If someone were to kill Little Tommy and then say to Tommy’s family, “I had no choice. If I didn’t kill Tommy, Genghis had said he’d kill two children. It was the only way to save those two children!”, do you think that Tommy’s family will be convinced that it was NOT an evil action? Would you if little Tommy was your beloved child?
As to your Nan King question, I’ve answered it the best I can without knowing the information specific to that circumstance. I’m not sufficiently informed to know all the circumstances around that particular incident in history and all the options available to them.
I have suggested that when, in Nicaragua, the villagers were being killed and otherwise terrorized by the Contras, the solution involved sending people there that the Contras were not willing to kill. We’d want to do something along those lines.
Sorry I don’t have time or energy to search out the full story and try to find the best solution to an incident that is already long past, but I don’t.
Dan,
The rape of Nanking (Nanjing) was the sack of the southern capital of China during the Sino-Japanese war. 300,000 people were murdered in the space of about a week by invading Japanese forces.
The question does not call more than High school knowledge of history, to whit was the US right in being drawn into an arguably non-defensive war against Japan and Germany in WWII?
If not, what “peaceful” means would you have used to confront atrocity and aggression from Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan.
For if there are none, then you realize by choosing (or being forced into war) you are knowingly admitting that the killing of innocents is part of your chosen path … but that the alternative means the death and enslavement of more innocents. I submit that there is and was no imaginable peaceful means to confront the Axis forces and aggression in WWII.
I think your choice of Nicaragua is a poor example in that the powers in conflict are highly asymmetrical in capability and the stronger side does indeed have a wide range of options. When the forces are more evenly matched … your options become more limited as was in the case of WWII.
The question does not call more than High school knowledge of history, to whit was the US right in being drawn into an arguably non-defensive war against Japan and Germany in WWII?
And this is the problem with war-as-solution. It requires no serious thinking or planning. You don’t like the enemy? You bomb ’em. (That, of course, is an oversimplification itself – it requires a whole different field of study and planning – as I believe I’ve quoted here before: “Why are we violent but not illiterate? Because we’re taught to read.”)
Non-Violent Direct Action and/or Just Peacemaking Theory is a planned means of dealing with problems. It requires good information and research.
As to your Nicaragua response, the stronger side was the side that “lost,” at least initially.
The Contras had the wealth and support of the US and were able to bleed the already poor Nicarguan people and gov’t dry. Just Peacemaking allowed the David of the Nicaraguan people to overcome the Goliath of the US-supported Contras in spite of overwhelming resources.
Can you offer some support for your belief that the tens of millions killed and trillions spent during WWII (not to mention the trillions upon trillions spent and lives lost in the Cold War era) is accurately called a victory?
When the forces are more evenly matched … your options become more limited as was in the case of WWII.
That’s the beauty of JPT and NVDA: While they definitely require investments of time and money, they remain cheaper by manyfold the investments for war-as-solution.
What leads to peace is not violence but peaceableness, which is not passivity, but an alert, informed, practiced, and active state of being. We should recognize that while we have extravagantly subsidized the means of war, we have almost totally neglected the ways of peaceableness.
We have, for example, several national military academies, but not one peace academy. We have ignored the teachings and the examples of Christ, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and other peaceable leaders. And here we have an inescapable duty to notice also that war is profitable, whereas the means of peaceableness, being cheap or free, make no money.
~Wendell Berry
Dan,
That’s silly.
The notion that WWII could have been avoided by the allies if we were just a little smarter. What “means of peaceableness” do you use to confront Hitler, Auschwitz, Dachau, Nanjing and the rest?
Again for the umpteenth time, don’t just keep making the empty claim that “a better solution” should have been found. Name one. Suggest what you think that “better solution” would have been. Suggest one plausible means of confronting Hitler and the Empire of Japan that didn’t involve war! One. Suggest something that gives an inkling that you have anything resembling a realistic view of the world.
Uhm … do you think generations of rule by a Nazi party in Europe would have cost less? Do you think there would be a Jew outside of the America’s (if America still was independent)? Don’t you think the “Aryan” race theorists Slavs and Blacks would not have been exterminated as well? Do you think the Japanese, in the wake of Nanjing, were on the path to killing less Chinese than Mao? I don’t. The Nazis preached a thousand year Reich, a reign of Aryan terror. If nobody resisted … they’d have gotten it. Isn’t their vision of the future that “higher cost” than what was expended?
Do you seriously think that the Allies entered into WWII to make money. Get real. You need to be just a little more charitable toward those you disagree with.
I do. And so did those who committed to the war against the Axis.
And you are free to guess that such is how things would have turned out if we had tried different methods. But you can’t prove that, you don’t know that. It is a hunch.
Similarly, I can’t predict “what might have been” if we tried something different. I’ve made several general suggestions on how to deal with threats of this sort. Including the use of reasonable force.
For the record, I did not say that WWII could have been adverted. You asked me what might have done to deal with nan king. I said I don’t have the time nor inclination to research the possibilities.
Your response suggests that you have not really studied nor given much thought to what NVDA nor JPT is about nor how it works. But I can clearly point you to real world situations where it has in fact worked.
Even if you wish to hang on to war-as-solution (which I’m not suggesting abolishing), if you truly believe in being a peacemaker, it would seem you would want to avail yourself of the alternatives out there and educate yourself on them.
I repeat: NVDA and/or JPT require planning, investigation and information, which I do not have time to do right now. I apologize that I don’t desire to research a unresolvable question to please you. I have pointed you to some real life suggestions on how to deal with current problems more peaceably.
Let me put this another way, as I don’t think you’re getting my gist.
Right NOW, and in the past few years, we have had genocides and serious oppression happening in Rwanda, Sudan, Congo and Darfur, not to mention an ongoing war in Iraq, just to name a few of the worst cases.
What do those who believe in war-as-solution propose to do about it? It’s happening right now. What are you proposing?
The thing is, if a people are intent on being violent, there are no easy answers. We can try to send militaries into these situations (although that will get real expensive in terms of people and money REAL quick – if Iraq is costing us ~$1 trillion, for a country with no great defense in place that is mostly defeated already – how much is the war-as-solution going to cost?) but how effective is that? How many lives will that cost without effectively stopping the violence?
We need better solutions. The way you’re putting it, you are suggesting that we can try that nutty peacemaking stuff and people will die, or we can send in the military and save the day. But, as WWII horrifyingly shows, THAT solution costs lives, too.
The question is, what are the best answers? We can’t afford to send in a military to every Rwanda, Sudan, Iraq, etc. We need better solutions.
Dan,
Before you keep assaulting straw men, I have never ever ever advocated “war” as the only solution. I fail to see how you might get that from me!
What I have advocated is the kind of thing described by Paul Collier in The Bottom Billion.
You are wrong that peace/aid is the only solution and those who advocate only war as the solution (which is not me!!!!) are also wrong. Both have their specific place and time and both can be implemented wrong. Read the book. Really. I can’t emphasize that enough. I named that book as the most influential book I read last year. I stand by that. Read it.
War can at times save lives. So can aid. War can cause harm and horror. So can aid.
However, in the “can the peacemaking” vein I was only referring to the notion that during WWII the free world was in a close fought struggle, which very well could easily have lost. Analysts have pointed to a number of key points at which the war could have gone the other way. The point is, if as you suggested 50% of our resources were allocated to “peacemaking” then … it wouldn’t have been close. We’d have lost outright. Again it depends on the situation.
The point is, if as you suggested 50% of our resources were allocated to “peacemaking” then … it wouldn’t have been close. We’d have lost outright. Again it depends on the situation.
You’re making an assumption that you can’t know. You’re assuming that the allocating of resources to wise peacemaking efforts would have borne no fruit.
Again, as we’ve seen in Nicaragua, in S. Africa, in the Civil Rights movement, in India, a little energy and resources wisely dedicated to resolving conflict can have a powerful impact.
“Overcome evil with good.”
Not just empty words, to me.